Ran across this play last night reading the FED book I assume the call is the same in all the leagues. If not will work it out in here. Thought this might be a good play to keep the brain loose while I have had 2 weeks of rain, ice and bad field conditions.

R1 on 3rd, 1 out, B2 hits a high fly to left center. R1 is sent home on contact thinking no fielder will get to the ball and after touching and crossing home plate see that F8 is making a sliding attempt on the fly ball R1 heads back to 3rd. F8 fumbles the ball and picks it up off the ground and throws it to F1 who is standing between 3rd and home, F1 tags R1 then throws to F4 who tags B2 sliding into 2nd. The defense starts coming off the field, double play, end of inning


MAKE THE CALL no peeking until after you answered!


Don

Make the Call
 

My first thought is if R1 has crossed home plate and the ball isnt caught, then he isnt in jeopardy of being called out. But...if that player returns to the field of play and draws a throw then the next closest runner to home is out. Please correct me if Im wrong.

I have a feeling this is not the same for all books. Fed may be different, but I believe in ASA, assuming the umpire call the offensive players out on the respective tags, the defense can head for the dugout.

I think umpdude has it right even in ASA. R1 touched home legally, that's a run. The later activity is INT. Jim

I thought that in all baseball and softball, if a player had legally scored, he could not be put out (with the one exception of the force-play slide rule in Fed).

Even if a player thought he left 3B too soon after a catch and retreated after scoring, the ump would count the run and take him off the basepaths.

Unless Fed has some stipulation I don't remember, I would not call interference on a player who attempted to return in the mistaken belief that he had missed a base or left one too soon.

As described I'd have INT because R1 drew the throw while on the base path. Had R1 simply walked off the field after the no catch and the defense threw to the plate then that would be different. Jim

But R1 is not out. The run scored legally. And R1 did not interfere. He/she was returning to tag up at 3B, thinking the ball was caught. And the succeeding runner was tagged out. ONE OUT on the play.

Even if you rule interference by R1, you cannot remove the run. There is still only one out made on the play.

Bob

[Edited by bluezebra on Feb 28th, 2003 at 01:14 PM]

I think we have a run scored and an out at 2nd base on the tag. If you felt there was INT on the runner who scored then we also have a dead ball on the INT.

I would rule the same in NCAA, FED and ASA. I couldn't find anything in the NCAA rulebook. Have not looked at Fed or ASA.

[/B][/QUOTE]

But R1 is not out. The run scored legally. And R1 did not interfere. He/she was returning to tag up at 3B, thinking the ball was caught. And the succeeding runner was tagged out. ONE OUT.

Bob

[Edited by bluezebra on Feb 28th, 2003 at 01:12 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

It's because R1 has scored that it is INT. INT does not have to be intentional to be called, if R1 stays in the basepath and draws a throw because of it then it would be INT, still only one out called (runner closest to the plate , in this case B2). If R1 simply walks off the field then the defense has no argument that R1 did something to draw the throw. Jim

I didn't mean to imply that R1 was out. I ment that if the umpire felt there was INT then we would have an automatic dead ball and an out at 2nd base since that was the closest runner to home.

Once R1 scores, they aquire the same status as a person on a the bench like a on deck batter, coach, ect.

The run counts.

Just because the defense plays on a runner who is out, that doesn't mean the runner ipso facto interfered. I don't know what rule Fed has established, but in everything else a runner who continues to run is not necessarily guilty of interference if the defense plays on him. If he pretends to be caught in a rundown or something, that's different. I wouldn't call a runner out for continuing to run unless I believed he was intending to mislead the defense.

I admit that drawing a throw by running back to 3B after scoring, even if in a genuine but mistaken attempt to correct an error, might be a case of its own.

OK, it's a Fed play. So what's the ruling, oppool?

I'm not saying it's automatic, but ASA does say that "after being declared out or scoring ... a runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference." 8-8-P Kinda a mute point in this play since they threw out B2. Jim

1 out on the play
 

Run scored. Interference or not, the runner was tagged out, and is the only out available. If runner wasn't out, if in the umps judgment, the player remaining on the field caused interference by distracting, the batter/runner would be out. (Ump is in the clear as interference was a judgement call.) Either way, now 2 out (1 previous, 1 on the play), no one on base. Play on. Unless bottom of last inning & the 1 run won the game. In that situation, no interference in any case, game was over.

ASA talking:

I may not have paid enough attention in class but I thought I heard that if a runner touches a base and then goes back past that base (touching or not touching it) that he/she had lost that base. If I paid attention correctly, would that apply here or did I get not pay close enough attention?

If R1 lost it, then I'd go with 2 outs and no int. If she did not loses it, then i have to judge whether the going back towards third was int and rule accordingly. A run would count regardless of int or not. If I have int, then out at second, run scores and 2 outs.

I wish the sit had more info so we could get a clearer idea of what led the defense to throw home. was offense yelling, get back to third, defense screaming throw home, etc. That helps to make the correct call. This type of wording should be in some of the plays imho.

Interference - FED
 

FED 8.6.17. . . . .after scoring, a runner continuing to run and draws a throw may be considered a form of interference. Penalty: dead ball; runner closest to home is out and other runners return.

OK, I've got the rule, but not the answer. Is the runner closest to home R1? Is she out and B1 returns to 1B? No run scores?

Or, because R1 has already scored she can not be called out, so B1 is closes to home and is out.

Either way we only have one out - just who is out - and what's on base - and why's on... (never mind!)
WMB

Ronald,

Thinking the same way I was, but that only applies when a runner reverses direction and for some reason passes the base to which they are forced, the force is reinstated. Or, after touching home plate, attempts to return to retouch 3B which was left too soon on a caught fly ball or missed enroute to score fails to retouch home on the way would be subject to a missed base appeal at the plate.

Though I don't like it, the run would score. The reason I don't like it is that if you are going to allow the runner who has crossed the plate to remain active for the purpose of returning to keep from being put out on appeal, why wouldn't you do the same to the runner who intentionally reintroduces themselves into a live ball scenario? It certainly isn't the defense's fault that this runner with the aid of a coach (and probably half the dugout) couldn't figure out which way to go.

JMHO,

The way I see it, R1 scores and R2 is out.


Scott

A runner who legally scores cannot later be put out. Only Fed baseball makes an exception, and that is if the runner on 3B is forced home, and he runs or slides past the plate and makes contact with the catcher.

The runner also cannot go back to 3B even if he wants to. The question is, If a runner who has legally scored tries to return to 3B in the mistaken belief that he left too soon or missed the base, is he guilty of interference if the defense plays on him?

I would say no. Unless, I hear differently, I won't call it unless I believe the act to be a deliberate attempt to confuse.

Once the runner has scored, she cannot "unscore" her run even if she mistakenly returns to 3rd, so the run scores regardless of subsequent action. Now whether you consider consider R1 drawing a throw on her mistaken return to be interference or not, you have the BR out at 2nd in either case, so you have 2 outs, add 1 to the offensive team's score.

To add a slight twist to the play, suppos the BR missed 1st on the way to 2nd. Can the defense appeal her miss at 1st for the 3rd out to negate the run?

SamC

No, R1 scored and nothing you can do about that. You can't get the same player out twice. Had there been 2 outs at the start of the play then you could get 3rd out and no run, but then R1 wouldn't have been thinking of tagging up. Well,at least R1 shouldn't be thinking of tagging up but I do alot of alleged adults and they, well I probably should just stop at that. Jim

Good Work
 

I have to admit when I first read the play last night I was on the same path as Ronald and Mike were orginally on this post, thinking a runner going back to a base put themselves back into jeopardy of being put-out only at HOME base is this not true. Somebody stated in there post that it would make a difference on ruling INT on R1 on this play if they knew what other members of the offensive team was telling his teammates where to throw on the play. I dont really see where this would make any difference on the call myself AND really dont see a case for the INT call on R1 on this play even though the end result would be the same. JMO


Similiar play in NFHS case book is play 2.49

Ruling: The run counts. Once a runner scores she cannot be put out if it is other than leaving too soon or missing a base. So R1 scores B2 out on the tag and B3 up to bat with 2 outs

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: I am supposing by this ruling if F8 had completed the catch after R1 had touched HOME she would not be able to go back to tag up at 3rd?


Don

Even after touching home, R1 could return to touch a base missed or left too soon. However, R1 would have to retouch home if she ran past it.

If a following runner scored, then R1 could not return.

OPPOOL
 

I still think that you have interferrence - as defined 8.6.17. Thus dead ball, and B1 returned to 1B. But someone has to be called out; if it can not be R1 (because she has scored), then it has to be B1 (who is closest to home plate). Same result, run scores and now 2 outs.

Note that if you determined that R1 intentionally interfered, then "the umpire has authority to declare two runners out." Casebook 8.6.17. Now you do have your inning ending double play.
WMB

Re: OPPOOL
 

OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...<u>may</u> be considered a form of interference..." not <u>must</u> be considered...

This means it is umpire judgment, and therefore, not calling this interference is a legitimate application of the rule.

Re: Re: OPPOOL
 

Tom,

This was originally a Fed question and I believe that is the book WMB is citing. But even ASA has the caveat that the umpire must believe the runner's action was intentionally meant to draw a throw.

If Abel scores legally and then runs backwards around the bases waving his arms and then tackles F4 who is trying to tag the runner, Abel's run still scores. The other runner is out for Abel's interference. The umpire cannot nullify Abel's run and award two outs on that play. But Abel will be "out" of the game.

Respond to Dakota & Greymule
 

Dakota said "OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...may be considered a form of interference..." not must be considered..."

FED 8.6.17: A runner continuing to run AND drawing a throw - may be considered a form of interference. In the original scenario, both conditions existed - (1) the runner DID continue to run, and (2) the runner DID draw a throw. Even though we were not there, I think a good case for interference can be assumed.

Greymule said "The umpire cannot nullify Abel's run and award two outs on that play."

I did not say the run was nullified; I suggested that two outs could be called. That is based on FED casebook 8.6.17 COMMENT: The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when after being declared out OR after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes . . . .

Now maybe that is poor writing (by use of the word OR in the comment). Perhaps they are suggesting that if a runner is called out, and then interferes (including continuing to run and draw a throw), then, because the runner is already out, the umpire can call another runner out. (Just like calling a double play if you believe that interference was intentional to break up a double play opportunity.) But the "OR" suggest that you could call two outs after a runner has scored, then intentionally interferes. I am not sure I would take that literally.

WMB

Try to clear it up
 

Ok first will go to case book play NFHS 8.6.17 Situation A which talks about a runner that has scored continuing to run and runs into F2 trying to make a play. Ruling run counts. IF in the umpire's judgement the INT prevented B2 from being put out the umpire shall call her out.

Then on this original play it states that F8 looks like they might make the play which gaves R1 a reason to be running back to 3rd since they left early. So I believe that takes away any INTENT on the play by R1 which means you may not rule INT on R1 on this play. R1 cannot be tag on the play running back to 3rd BUT she can be called out on a APPEAL for leaving the base early..

My understanding is this is all the same for ASA too.


JMO

Don

It's just poor writing. A runner cannot both score and be out. In Fed, if a runner scored on a force play and then crashed the catcher, the ump would call both that runner and the BR out, but the run wouldn't count. I can't remember whether a crash after a non-force play at home could put the runner out.

In a baseball thread, we've been talking about poor writing. Look at Fed 2002 rules book 8-4-2f:

"Any runner is out when he . . . as a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or attempts to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base . . ."

If he's a retired runner, he's already out. And he's out if he attempts to avoid the fielder or the play?

Rule 8
 

was completely re-written in FED Softball last year, and though it is definately better, the issues covering interference, especially on a suceeding play, are still confusing.

INTENT is not required to call interference except in the case of a thrown ball (or a runner hit by a fly ball while in contact with the base). Deliberate, or accidental, the runner is still out. However, INTENT is required for an umpire to judge if the interference was an obvious attempt to prevent a double play. There is no judgemet as to whether or not the second out actually could have been made, the suceeding runner is out (by rule).

INTENT is required to call interference on a RETIRED runner (having scored or been put out) that prevents a play from being made on another runner. By rule, the runner closest to home is then called out. But in the Casebook, if in the umpire's judgement the interference prevented a runner from being put out, then THAT runner can be called out. (Confusing!)

I don't understand why retired runner's interference has to be intentional. In Casebook Situation A mentioned by Oppool, F2 received ball behind home plate too late to tag R1. F2 turns to throw to 2B to get B1, but is hit by R1 and drops ball. If that is intentional, then dead ball and B1 returns to 1B - OR - if you think that interference prevented a play on B1 then you call B1 out. But if the contact is accidental, then no iterference and B1 stays at 2B. What if F2 was hit while throwing and threw the ball into centerfield, allowing B1 to go to 3B or even score? Should that be allowed to stand? Based on the lack of intent, it would. What do you think?
WMB